government, and can at once, in a regular and constitutional way, take measures for the preservation of its rights."

Mr. Rives, in his Life of Madison (Vol. II. p. 501), after quoting Hamilton's "axiom in our political system," that "the state governments, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by national authority," proceeds to say, what every investigator knows to be true, that "this was among the considerations most dwelt on by writers of the Federalist, to recommend the constitution to the favor and confidence of the people." The last Reasoning of the States on the Subject. We see, then, that the states, as individuals, not less distinct than so many men, associated themselves in their second, and, as they expressed it, "more perfect union." They, ipso facto, established their general agency for self-ruling and self-defence. The instinct and right of self-preservation exists in each, as an inherent and inseparable part of its nature. Now, had these actors respectively any less desire, aim, and duty of self-preservation, after associating? No! all the fathers recognized, not only the right, but the duty of the state, when it deems its existence, its sovereignty, or the essential rights of itself or its people, endangered by the acts or menaces of the federal government, to oppose them; and, if the said government persist, to do it with arms! Why? Because the state is the people, and the only people in the land organized into a political commonwealth or corporation, and it has all original jurisdiction over every possible matter of life, liberty, and property a jurisdiction coupled with the responsibility of protection. and defence; and if the federal "substitutes and agents," by virtue of the small modicum of derivative authority delegated to them, forget their derivative and "act as from original power" transcending their bounds, and menacing the liberties of the people, the state must interpose its ægis and say: "You were sent forth as subjects, delegates, agents, and servants; if you come back dominating as a sovereign, a principal, or a master, and using coercion to effect your will and defeat mine, I must meet with arms!

you

Beyond question, then, not only has the federal agency no right to coerce its makers, as I have heretofore shown, but these makers have, as against it, unlimited right of self-defence, by withdrawing delegations, and recalling their citizens from federal offices; by dissociation; and by fighting, if need be, the federal government. Q. E. D.

CHAPTER VI.

TRUE LOYALTY IS FIDELITY TO THE state.

DOINT VI. — To defend the state with arms, in obedience to her

POINT

will, is the duty of the member or citizen, and is not treason in any sense; but is true loyalty.

Several corollaries of vital importance flow from this point, which it is well here to state :

1. That the primary devotion of the citizen is, and ought to be, to his state, so that in a conflict, he would cleave to her against the federal government.

2. That the citizens are the states, and the only citizenship is of Necessarily the only allegiance is to states. Both federal and state constitutions prove these facts.

3. That the state, being the citizens thereof, and the arms-bearing citizens being the military force, the state has the original and supreme right coupled with the duty to control and use the said force for her defence.

4. That citizens, by defending the state, are defending themselves - both individually and collectively as required by Nature's first, greatest, and best law-the law of self-preservation.

5. That the citizens, as organized, being, in reality, the governing authority, a citizen cannot commit treason, if he obey the commonwealth, this being the very obligation of the social compact.

6. And, finally, that the federal constitution proves the state to be the sole object of treason.

A few Explanatory Remarks. - We must keep it in mind that, "the state" and the "citizens thereof," are convertible phrases, the citizens being the state. They are the republic, i. e. an organized, self-governing commonwealth. The federal agency's only right to the obedience of the citizen is delegated to it by the states. Obeying the federal government, therefore, is obeying its creators and sovereigns, the states; each citizen obeying because the sovereign, whose subject he is, commands it. In a word, the citizens, as individuals, obey themselves, as commonwealths- this federal contrivance being

merely their agency for self-government in general matters, just as the state government is their agency for self-government in domestic affairs. This is republicanism.

These remarks will enable us the more readily to appreciate the following considerations, which will be seen to be those of the fathers themselves.

THE STATE IS THE SOLE OBJECT OF PATRIOTISM.

1. The fathers consider that the primary devotion of the citizen would be, and ought to be, to his state; so that in case of conflict, he would cleave to her against the federal government.

This natural devotion of citizens to their states, was the fathers' strongest ground of argument against the danger of federal aggression. It was treated of by them, as a natural and controlling sentiment of the citizen towards the body he was an integral part of, and which the social compact bound him to love, honor, and obey. They knew that the said commonwealth included and secured all the citizen held dear, and that patriotism and loyalty were consonant, if not identical, with his self-love, his affection for his family and kindred, and his regard for his home treasures, his friends, his neighbors, his fellowcitizens, and the palladium that protects them all the state! These feelings are the necessary elements of patriotism; while the federal government, being at best only a political arrangement, or agency of the states, which are identical with the said citizens, could only be an object of respect and obedience to a given citizen, as long as his commonwealth willed him to obey it.

Let the Fathers express the Glorious Sentiment. Said JOHN DICKINSON: "The trustees or servants of the several states will not dare, if they retain their senses, to violate that independent sovereignty of their respective states that JUSTLY DARLING OBJECT OF AMERICAN AFFECTIONS, to which they are responsible." These sentiments were expressly approved by Washington. Said HAMILTON: "There are certain social principles in human nature from which we may draw the most solid conclusions, with respect to the conduct of individuals and communities. We love our families more than our neighbors. We love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre, and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle on which they act. On these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and forever secured by the state government." And he believed the states to possess unlimited right of self-defence. Said MARSHALL, in reply to the argument that by giving a certain power to the federal government, the states might

impair their power of self-defence: "Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast?". - that is to say Is not self-defence the first law of nature? This right, as well as the right of withdrawing delegated power by the states, he thought unlimited. Said ELLSWORTH: "I turn my eyes to the states for the preservation of my rights. . . . The greatest happiness I expect in this life, I can derive from these alone. This happiness depends on their existence, as much as a new-born infant on its mother for nourishment." He considered the right of self-defence in states as essential" and unlimited.

66

Every sentiment of the patriotic age was in unison.

Not a soul of

no

the fathers ever dreamed that any combination of the states, or portion of the people, could legally use the federal government, and its vested power and war means, to conquer other states, and to punish the citizens of these for treason. Not a soul of them ever supposed that defending one's state was traitorous. State sovereignty coercion of states — unlimited state defence, were the ideas of all. Governor EDMUND RANDOLPH, in the Virginia ratifying convention, summed up the whole glorious theory of true loyalty, as follows: After saying that the rights of the states are "guarded by the provisions just recited. If you say," continued he, "that, notwithstanding the most express restrictions, they [the government] may sacrifice the rights of the states, then you establish another doctrine - that the creature can destroy the creator, which is the most absurd and ridiculous of all doctrines." [III. Ell. Deb. 363.]

In other words, it is absurd and ridiculous to say that the general government can coerce states; that the states cannot defend themselves; or that loyalty is due to the created agency, instead of the sovereign creators. As Marshall says 'Every man feels a

refutation of the argument in his own breast."

I conclude, then, that the loyalty of a citizen is due, and that it will be given, to his state under all circumstances. Q. E. D.

2.

THE

CHAPTER VII..

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE.

“HE citizens are the state; the only citizenship is of states; and necessarily the only allegiance is to states. These are the ideas of both federal and state constitutions, as well as of the fathers.

It is beyond question that the only citizenship originally existent in the states that joined themselves in union, was citizenship of a state; and citizenship of, and allegiance to, a nation, or a national (or federal) government, was never provided for, if it was even thought of. This is quite evident from the following clauses: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." [Art. IV. § 2.] "The judicial power of the united states shall extend . . . to controversies between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects." [Art. III. § 2. See also Amendment XI.] If there were any citizens of a nation, they were not recognized or provided for. There were no other citizens than "the citizens of each state," and their citizenship and allegiance was never transferred. The reason is quite obvious. States were the constituents of the federal system; and these very citizens were the states- each being a member, an integral part of his state; and if such transfer had taken place, there would have been no more citizens of each state," and it would thus have contradicted and defeated the constitution itself; there being no provision for any other citizens than those of a state, who must, of course, remain untransferred, in order to answer to these descriptions and provisions as to "the citizens of each state," "citizens of different states," etc.

We see, then, that President Jackson's statement in his celebrated proclamation of 1832- that "the allegiance of their citizens was transferred to the government of the united states" by their respective states, is absolutely untrue, unconstitutional, and absurd. The truth is, the proclamation against South Carolina was for an exigency of a